On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Zhang <zhang.lei....@gmail.com> wrote:
> We introduced customization solution.
>
> Now, we support two format of footer.
>
> 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }}
> 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %}
>
> there two conflict about this now[0][1].
>
> I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution.
>
> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357746
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253
>
> --
> Regards,
> Jeffrey Zhang
> Blog: http://xcodest.me
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>I tend towards #2, patchset [0] is corresponding to a discussion on #openstack-kolla and if we keep #2, we need to keep #1 in all dockerfiles with a deprecation warning for next cycle. Also what if user specifies both the footer blocks? We need to confirm we ignore #1 if #2 is chosen. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
